DED claims
"...it does nothing of benefit for Apple (to whom licensing fees are not an issue)..."

My question... who are his sources at Apple? Mr. Jobs himself has talked about paying licensing royalty for Blu-Ray.

"Blu-ray is just a bag of hurt. I don't mean from the consumer point of view. It's great to watch movies, but the licensing is so complex," Jobs said. "We're waiting until things settle down, and waiting until Blu-ray takes off in the marketplace before we burden our customers with the cost of the licensing and the cost of the drives."

I read DED not for the 'news reporting' but for his analysis of Apple's internal thinking

Note that Dilger mentioned licensing fees, not the complexity of the licensing at the time of Jobs statement.

Also note that Jobs statement, while truthful, wasnt the whole truth. There are plenty of reasons why Apple was never going to adopt Blu-ray. For one, they were backing their video service. Digital video downloads and streaming is more popular on computers than all optical media for watching videos and its growing at a huge rate. For HECs its great, but not for a laptop, which is what Apple sells most.

Also part of the issue is the cost. Sure, you can buy a Blu-ray player at Best Buy for under $100 but the 9.5mm Blu-ray drives they need didnt exist then and cost over $500 as an upgrade option on Dell and HP machines that use those ultra-slim drives.

The bottom line is the Bu-ray/HD-DVD war was at a time that made many wait and by the time it ended the online video market became the very real future for mobile PCs. I suspect it wont be long before the optical drive which takes 25% of the 13 Mac internal space, has moving parts and uses a lot of power to run at slower than NAND speeds will be removed entirely.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

I am sufficiently annoyed to have made Bing my default search engine. If it sucks too much I'll move it back but honestly what an asshat move because I fully expect Google to drop h.264 support on YouTube shortly which will be truly annoying.

I find vorbis to be the best, but that's just me. All have their own artifacts at lower bit rates, but I find vorbis' to be the least annoying. Personally I use h.264 and vorbis in mkv, and use aac and the standard container when I want maximum compatibility.

This scheme was used also for QT for a time. If you used it, you had to be GPL, but if you wanted to be proprietary, you had to pay.

It isn't as if apple needs to make another lossless format either. They could have just used FLAC. And given their history of using some free stuff, it can't hurt them. Vorbis is open domain or BSD.

That link, while useful, only seems to deal with encoders, not decoders. But as doom9 knows, its the best damn encoder. At least the last time I checked

Well, Flash video is usually a Flash wrapper around H.264 content nowadays. So Adobe is on the H.264 bandwagon too, they just want you to only access it through them, not directly. The part of Flash that sucks is the wrapper and scripting/animation layers, it also used to be the lack of hardware acceleration although that seems to be mostly fixed now.

My very subversive guess is that because of the Flash as a wrapper around H.264 content setup, Chrome WILL STILL DO H.264 DECODING!!! But ONLY inside Flash wrappers. And if that's the case something is very self serving about the Chrome announcement.

Well studios like it for DRM too. It isn't easy to steal videos from sites like thedailyshow.com

dropping H264 support from the Chrome browser weakens Chrome competitively, as it already has done to FireFox (as DED notes). because there are other good browsers available. but it strengthens Flash as the media player of last resort, especially for mobile devices that simply can't play WebM well at all (assuming Adobe improves Flash soon as promised again and again).

which is probably what Google intends. Flash is about the only difference with iOS in Android's favor market-wise. the "whole web" hype (whereas only geeks care about the "open" BS). if H264 availability really begins to shrink that hurts Apple.

but to really make that stick, Google will have to stop using H264 for YouTube. and that would be very naked market aggression that would bring up very dangerous monopoly issues about YouTube. we'll see ...

anyway, it's very probably too late. the iOS user base is too big already (and may even double again in 2011), and its high-end customer profile is way too desirable for any mediacos to blow off by not offering total H264 content for it.

to me, this Google maneuver looks like either a case of incredible conceit - or desperation. or both?

This decision obviously favors google, but I didn't see DED mention this: Web content is royalty free, but not the encoders or decoders.

Nice of Google to release webm, and if anyone wants to sue, just get it over with. No one is suing over Vorbis and a big company, Sandisk uses it, and it isn't as if they can't extract money over a lawsuit.

Of course if Google wants to, YouTube can go web m overnight, as it already is converting to it now on their html5 access view. It can't kill apple to support it, since it is free, and it is hardware supported.

Nobody will BOTHER to sue Vorbis, which is old, decrepit technology. But hey, it's free. As in skunk beer.

Nobody will BOTHER to sue Vorbis, which is old, decrepit technology. But hey, it's free. As in skunk beer.

You are probably thinking of theora; vorbis is quite actively developed and usually wins ab comparison tests. For most people vorbis at 110kbps is as good or better than mp3 at 160kbps. It is used a lot, mainly because of no licensing fees than anything else, but it is a good format.

x264 is nothing short of absolutely bloody amazing. Just see the mp4 BluRay rips at 1080p and 720p, as well as Handbrake conversions to 720p playback on, for example, iPad (High Profile is actually supported). A few years ago x264 was a good free alternative to commercial encoders and was somewhat similar to xvid encoding. In 2010, x264 blew away everything else.

So from a web developer perceptive, if you are going to need to support two formats anyway, it seems logical that it should be Flash and h.264. If you want to support FF as a an open source gesture, then make the extra effort and export as Ogg too. I fail to see why I would want to support webM/V8. If Chrome retains Flash support, webM will never take off.

In fact, the crucial thing is, where are the web developer tools for WebM? And where is the browser support, apart from Chrome? You'll get a AVC version if you produce the film. A well-documented codec, with lots of techs who know how to tweak it. Where's the encoders for WebM? Am I missing something?

So, you've done the work. You've linked to, say, a large h.264 version, and say you put a Flash version on your site, too. Now you've got to put a third version there, because Chrome's user stats are on the way up. Can you drop any of the other versions? Why, no.

Stupid, monopolistic move. I'm surprised at how fast it's happening to a once very cool company. But it has to do with their post-search business model, which is monopolistic as hell.

I am sufficiently annoyed to have made Bing my default search engine. If it sucks too much I'll move it back but honestly what an asshat move because I fully expect Google to drop h.264 support on YouTube shortly which will be truly annoying.

The only Google services I use are Search and Maps. When I read this I started thinking that maybe I should take another look at Bing.

Chrome is just one of dozens of browsers out there using WebKit with a new UI slapped on top. Not sure why anyone cares about it. If it were released by someone other than Google it'd be another iCab or Omniweb with a -0.1% market share.

Patents, trademarks, copyrights, IP, it ALL has to go... GO AWAY FOR GOOD!

This is a GOOD MOVE! Partially.

drop the HIGHLY ENCUMBERED h.264 standard. The only reason the MPEGLA gestapo is doing what they are is to get you hooked in like an addict.. then.... WHAMN! LICENSING FEES! ! ! Any one who doesn't see this coming is just not paying attention.

So this is PARTIALLY a good thing... supporting flash is another debate... for another time.

ff has already said they will not support h.264 for HTML5.

Wow, so much clairvoyance. I'm glad you can read minds and see into the future.

But if we are to be cynical with google, then that means to be fair, apple doesn't want flash on their iphone because it allows running games, apps and other stuff outside their walled garden, and they do not want that at all.

Never mind that Flash is a steaming pile of shite on mobile devices. If you care about how long your battery will last, that is. If not, by all means. Flash away!

Rather have flash and homestarrunner.com plus less battery life than nothing at all.

Besides, it isn't as if video viewing drains the battery quick anyhow. Benchmarks have proved this time and time again.

Oh, yes, flash isn't good on Android. But there has always been more to flash than just video!

Like what? Games? That'll drain your mobile device's battery the fastest. The best Flash-based game I've played is one that was written in Flash and translated to iOS using Adobe's tools. It's a great game, and I hope to see a LOT more of them. That way Flash developers can just compile their apps down to iOS format using Adobe's own excellent tools for the job.

Patents, trademarks, copyrights, IP, it ALL has to go... GO AWAY FOR GOOD!

This is a GOOD MOVE! Partially.

drop the HIGHLY ENCUMBERED h.264 standard. The only reason the MPEGLA gestapo is doing what they are is to get you hooked in like an addict.. then.... WHAMN! LICENSING FEES! ! ! Any one who doesn't see this coming is just not paying attention.

So this is PARTIALLY a good thing... supporting flash is another debate... for another time.

ff has already said they will not support h.264 for HTML5.

Communism much?

Seriously. You want a life that's funded by advertisements or what? I think I saw something like that in blade runner

It's a natural evolution. Flash has become an inferior user experience, so h264 is moving in. Once licensing fees come into play and the consumer experience is affected, something new will come. no sense staying in the past because you're afraid of the future

MPEGLA extended the royalty free license until the end of the lifetime of the patent portfolio -- there's nothing indefinite about it!

The only thing I can think of here is that Google wants MPEGLA to make all use of H264 on the Web free forever, not just non-commercial use. I think MPEGLA should go ahead and do that, and end all uncertainty about this issue.

What you're saying already ends all uncertainty. When the patents in a portfolio expire, that's it. Patents are not renewable. When any patent expires after a maximum of 20 years, it becomes public domain - no ifs, ands or buts about it. At that point, anybody can use it and there would be no legal way for MPEG LA to demand licensing fees. There's no need to define anything after the 20 year term.

Also note that Jobs statement, while truthful, wasnt the whole truth. There are plenty of reasons why Apple was never going to adopt Blu-ray. For one, they were backing their video service. Digital video downloads and streaming is more popular on computers than all optical media for watching videos and its growing at a huge rate.

Couldn't agree with this more. The longer it takes blu-ray to become the optical standard, the faster it becomes obsolete.

Quote:

I suspect it wont be long before the optical drive which takes 25% of the 13 Mac internal space, has moving parts and uses a lot of power to run at slower than NAND speeds will be removed entirely.

I would also add that they already have a head start with optimization and implementation of such a device as well as a very strong following of iOS device users that have no need for optical drives.

Like what? Games? That'll drain your mobile device's battery the fastest. The best Flash-based game I've played is one that was written in Flash and translated to iOS using Adobe's tools. It's a great game, and I hope to see a LOT more of them. That way Flash developers can just compile their apps down to iOS format using Adobe's own excellent tools for the job.

And thankfully Steve changed his mind about allowing such stuff in iOS. For whatever the reason, nice or cynical.

So what does Mozilla say? I see more people using Firefox still than Chrome. Especially on PCs. I do see the points made that Google is doing this just as retaliation to the iPhone on Verizon. They will naturally have Adobe on their side since they are the only ones who want Flash on their platform. Ironic, isn't it? Adobe who used to DESPISE any open source company has gotten in bed with Google.

I'm getting worried that a lot of these companies think that they can control us by dictating what we can and cannot do by removing things from software for no good reason. I'm also worried that Rixstep might be right about the state of the Mac with 10.6.6, the Mac app store and 10.7 being able to restrict what we can run on our Macs. Sure it might be tin foil hat stuff, but it still gives me the creeps cause it could happen:

Welcome to the club guys. I've almost been Google free for awhile now. No searching on Google, no GMail, no maps, none of their other services either with the exception of YouTube.

It appears I will say goodbye to YouTube now.

The GPL guys (don't call these guys open source) are all into this dystopian ideal of unrestricted usage rights of software, and many of the fans of Google and open source seem to have a common bond.

But, you know what this will lead to? A classless, no elegance world of ads ads ads everywhere. It's Minority Report where you'll be identified where ever you go and ads are served just for your eyeballs. Realized this long time ago and stopped using Google search or anything else Google with the exception of YouTube.

For search engines. Try something like blekko and wolfram alpha. Google's search algorithm has been so gamed now that search results are nothing but ads. This was true years ago. Google's business model is to commoditize all software and hardware to encourage ad-supported revenue models in order to sell more advertising. A world like that is pretty classless.

I wonder when the GPL and open source guys will really start to subvert all of the advertising on the web. Flashblock and adblock are cool an all, but what about every ad? And hopefully a real YouTube competitor will appear.

So if I want to watch H.264 on Chrome, I can install an extension and watch it.

If I want to watch WebM on Safari, I can't.

If you think Google's choice is somehow inflammatory, Apple has made similar decisions with Flash and Java on their recent notebook releases. Of course, the end-user is free to install these add-ons and continue to consume this content.

In the same way, end-user isn't barred from H.264 in Chrome at all. They just need to take an extra step.

There are no steps anyone can take to watch WebM on Safari, or Flash in an iPad browser (short of the pre-rendering browser or Frash via jailbreaking both of which are incomplete solutions).

Don't get me wrong, I don't really care for Flash or WebM - but stop it with the unnecessary anti-Google rhetoric that doesn't really belong. People consider me rabidly pro-Apple, and even I think that some of the Google bashing here goes a little overboard.

Seriously. You want a life that's funded by advertisements or what? I think I saw something like that in blade runner

It's a natural evolution. Flash has become an inferior user experience, so h264 is moving in. Once licensing fees come into play and the consumer experience is affected, something new will come. no sense staying in the past because you're afraid of the future

Something new has come, and its called WebM...technically its been here awhile but whatever.

I know there is a bunch of butthurt going on in this thread, and its pretty pathetic and hilarious at the same time.

H.264 is not open source in the least bit, and is only freely given away to end users but Google (and Apple) are eating costs to provide it to us for free. Still, history has taught us that what might be given away for free today wont be tomorrow, have we not learned anything from the issues with MP3 and GIF?

Google can easily squash H.264, especially being the towering streaming giant by owning Youtube and do encoding solely in WebM. While Apple has done admirably pushing HTML5 via H.264, Apple does not have the power to do anything about this. WebM will be supported by IE9, Chrome, Firefox, AND Opera, about 93% of web usage comes from these browsers...the only ones not on this list of course is Apple's Safari, which is that last 7% (that includes both mobile and desktop Safari).